Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: AEP911 Case Number: DEP9211 Section / Act: S8(1)AD Parties: CLONMEL CHEMICALS COMPANY LIMITED - and - 36 FEMALE OPERATIVES;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union for a determination that Equality Officer's Recommendation No. EP10/1989 has not been implemented and appeal by the Company against the said recommendation.
Recommendation:
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the
evidence submitted in relation to the jobs, the job evaluation
reports of the Consultants, and having visited the plant and
inspected the jobs of the claimants and the comparators the Court
has come to the following conclusions:-
SECTION 2(3) - GROUNDS OTHER THAN SEX.
4. 1. The Company has argued that in the job descriptions and
analysis of the operations, the work carried out by the
Grade 1. operatives obliges them, (a) to lift weights,
considerably in excess of the limits laid down in the Safety
in Industry Acts for females (16Kg), and (b) to be highly
flexible and that accordingly these requirements constitute
grounds other than sex for the payment of the higher rate of
pay. For the following reasons the Court does not accept
these arguments:-
(a) The lifting of weights only constitutes a
small part of the work. For this factor to
make a difference the Court considers, it would
require that the lifting of weights constituted
a high level of physical effort being required
or the job required a significant volume of
physical effort. These circumstances do not
apply in the jobs under scrunity.
(b) The Court accepts the evidence of the
Company that the operatives in Grade 1 have
been trained in different jobs however little
demand has been made on the operatives to
exercise this flexibility.
The Court finds that the demands placed on the operatives to
exercise the additional skills for which they were trained,
were not significant.
Accordingly it is the conclusion of the Court that the
requirements under (a) and (b) above do not constitute
"grounds other than sex" for the payment of a higher rate of
pay, to the comparators.
SECTION 3(B) - SIMILAR WORK
4. 2. The Court concurs with the conclusions of the Equality
Officer that the work of the Kingcounter and Screenprinter
operatives (Grade 11) is similar in nature within the terms
of section 3(b) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 to
the work carried out to the comparators in that all the
workers concerned carry out relatively straight forward
factory operative duties.
From assesment of the jobs of the Screenprinter and
Kingcounter operatives and the jobs of the comparators.
(Home stores and Dispenser operatives), the Court is
satisfied that the difference in the demands made on the
Screenprinter operatives and the demands made on the
comparators are not of such importance as would justify
payment of a different rate of pay if the sex of the
operative was not taken into account. In the case of the
Kingcounter operative the Court is satisfied that the
difference in demands on this operative and the comparators
is of such significance as would warrant the payment of a
different rate of pay.
In the light of the above the Court finds that the female
operatives (Grade 11) when operating the Screenprinter are
performing like work with that performed by the Home Stores
and Dispenser Operatives (Grade 1).
The Court does not find that the female operatives (Grade 11)
when operating the Kingcounter are performing like work with
that performed by the Grade 1 operatives referred to above.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2(1) and 8(5) of
the Anti Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 the Court determines
that each of the female operatives concerned should be paid
the same rate of pay as the Home Stores and Dispenser
Operatives (Grade 1) in respect of any time spent operating
the Screenprinter. Such payment to be with effect from the
dates recommended by the Equality Officer.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
AEP91/1 DETERMINATION NO. DEP1192
THE LABOUR COURT
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT, 1974
PARTIES: CLONMEL CHEMICALS COMPANY LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
36 FEMALE OPERATIVES
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union for a determination that Equality
Officer's Recommendation No. EP10/1989 has not been implemented
and appeal by the Company against the said recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Equality Officer's recommendation concerns a dispute
as to whether or not 36 named female Grade II Operatives are
entitled to the same rate of remuneration as 44 named male
Grade I Operatives, on the basis that they each perform like
work with that performed by each of the Grade I Operatives
within the terms of Sections 3(b) and 3(c) of the
Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974. The recommendation of
the Equality Officer which issued on 28th November, 1990 is
attached as appendix I to this Determination.
2. The Union by letter dated the 7th January, 1991 appealed
to the Court for a determination that the Equality Officer's
recommendation has not been implemented.
3. The Company by letter dated 4th January, 1991 gave
notice of an appeal to the Court against the Equality
Officer's recommendation. The grounds given by the Company
for the appeal are as follows:-
1. The Equality Officer erred in fact in his assessment of
the work carried out by Peter Ryan, comparator.
2. The Equality Officer erred in fact in his assessment of
the work carried out by John Larkin, comparator.
3. The job description prepared by the Equality Officer for
the Home Stores area does not reflect the full range of
duties and responsibilities attached to the position.
Accordingly, the Equality Officer has seriously
understated the demands of the position under the
various headings in Section 3(c).
4. The job description by the Equality Officer for the
Dispensary does not reflect the full range of duties and
responsibilities attached to the position. Accordingly,
the Equality Officer has seriously understated the
demands of the position under the various headings in
Section 3(c).
5. The Equality Officer erred in fact in his assessment of
the work carried out by the claimants for whom equal pay
was recommended.
6. The Equality Officer did not take into account or give
sufficient weight to the degree of flexibility required
of Grade I Operatives.
7. The Equality Officer did not take into account or give
sufficient weight to the job evaluation report prepared
by the independent consultant.
8. The equality Officer erred in fact in finding under
Section 3(b) that the work of the comparators and the
claimants is similar.
9. The Equality Officer erred in fact in finding under
Section 3(b) that the differences between the
comparators and the claimants jobs were of small
importance in relation to the work as a whole.
10. The Equality Officer erred in law in using the factors
in Section 3(c) to interpret what is "small importance
in relation to the work as a whole".
11. The Company reserves the right to submit such other
grounds of appeal as may arise in the course of hearing
the Company's appeal.
3. The Court heard the appeal on 29th August, 1991 in Clonmel
and subsequently carried out a work inspection at the
Company's plant on 13th November, 1991.
The submissions of the Union and the Company are attached at
appendix 2 and 3 respectively.
DETERMINATION:
4. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the
evidence submitted in relation to the jobs, the job evaluation
reports of the Consultants, and having visited the plant and
inspected the jobs of the claimants and the comparators the Court
has come to the following conclusions:-
SECTION 2(3) - GROUNDS OTHER THAN SEX.
4. 1. The Company has argued that in the job descriptions and
analysis of the operations, the work carried out by the
Grade 1. operatives obliges them, (a) to lift weights,
considerably in excess of the limits laid down in the Safety
in Industry Acts for females (16Kg), and (b) to be highly
flexible and that accordingly these requirements constitute
grounds other than sex for the payment of the higher rate of
pay. For the following reasons the Court does not accept
these arguments:-
(a) The lifting of weights only constitutes a
small part of the work. For this factor to
make a difference the Court considers, it would
require that the lifting of weights constituted
a high level of physical effort being required
or the job required a significant volume of
physical effort. These circumstances do not
apply in the jobs under scrunity.
(b) The Court accepts the evidence of the
Company that the operatives in Grade 1 have
been trained in different jobs however little
demand has been made on the operatives to
exercise this flexibility.
The Court finds that the demands placed on the operatives to
exercise the additional skills for which they were trained,
were not significant.
Accordingly it is the conclusion of the Court that the
requirements under (a) and (b) above do not constitute
"grounds other than sex" for the payment of a higher rate of
pay, to the comparators.
SECTION 3(B) - SIMILAR WORK
4. 2. The Court concurs with the conclusions of the Equality
Officer that the work of the Kingcounter and Screenprinter
operatives (Grade 11) is similar in nature within the terms
of section 3(b) of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act 1974 to
the work carried out to the comparators in that all the
workers concerned carry out relatively straight forward
factory operative duties.
From assesment of the jobs of the Screenprinter and
Kingcounter operatives and the jobs of the comparators.
(Home stores and Dispenser operatives), the Court is
satisfied that the difference in the demands made on the
Screenprinter operatives and the demands made on the
comparators are not of such importance as would justify
payment of a different rate of pay if the sex of the
operative was not taken into account. In the case of the
Kingcounter operative the Court is satisfied that the
difference in demands on this operative and the comparators
is of such significance as would warrant the payment of a
different rate of pay.
In the light of the above the Court finds that the female
operatives (Grade 11) when operating the Screenprinter are
performing like work with that performed by the Home Stores
and Dispenser Operatives (Grade 1).
The Court does not find that the female operatives (Grade 11)
when operating the Kingcounter are performing like work with
that performed by the Grade 1 operatives referred to above.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2(1) and 8(5) of
the Anti Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 the Court determines
that each of the female operatives concerned should be paid
the same rate of pay as the Home Stores and Dispenser
Operatives (Grade 1) in respect of any time spent operating
the Screenprinter. Such payment to be with effect from the
dates recommended by the Equality Officer.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
8th May, 1992
M.D./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman